Relational forestry: a call to expand the discipline’s institutional foundations

References

• Agrawal A, Chhatre A, Hardin R. 2008. Changing governance of the World’s forests. Science. 320(5882):1460–17. doi: 10.1126/science.1155369.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen KE, Quinn CE, English C, Quinn JE. 2018. Relational values in agroecosystem governance. Curr Opin Sust. 35:108–115. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson CB, Athayde S, Raymond CM, Vatn A, Arias-Arévalo P, Gould RK, Kenter J, Muraca B, Sachdeva S, Samakov A, et al. 2022. Chapter 2. Conceptualizing the diverse values of nature and their contributions to people. Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.7154713.
   Google Scholar
• Assmann E. 1970. The Principles of Forest Yield Study [Waldertragskunde]. Gardiner SH, translator. Munchen, Germany: BLV Verlagsgesellshaft.
   Google Scholar
• Association of BC Forest Professionals. 2021. Code of ethical and professional conduct: guidelines for interpretation; [accessed 2023 Sept 9]. https://www.fpbc.ca/practice-resources/standards-practice-guidelines/standards-of-ethical-professional-conduct/.
   Google Scholar
• Bastida M, Vaquero García A, Vázquez Taín MÁ. 2021. A new life for forest resources: the commons as a driver for economic sustainable development—a case study from galicia. Land. 10(2):99. Article 2. doi: 10.3390/land10020099.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batavia C, Nelson MP. 2016. Conceptual ambiguities and practical challenges of ecological forestry: a critical review. J For. 114(5):572–581. doi: 10.5849/jof.15-103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batavia C, Nelson MP. 2017. For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we care? Biol Conserv. 209:366–376. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baviskar A. 1994. Fate of the forest: conservation and tribal rights. Econ Polit Weekly. 29(38):2493–2501.
   Google Scholar
• Bengston DN. 1994. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Soc Natur Resour. 7(6):515–533. doi: 10.1080/08941929409380885.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett BM. 2015. Plantations and protected areas: a global history of forest management. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bettinger P, Boston K, Siry JP, Grebner DL. 2016. Forest management and planning. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Academic press.
   Google Scholar
• Betts MG, Phalan BT, Wolf C, Baker SC, Messier C, Puettmann KJ, Green R, Harris SH, Edwards DP, Lindenmayer DB, et al. 2021. Producing wood at least cost to biodiversity: integrating triad and sharing–sparing approaches to inform forest landscape management. Biol Rev. 96(4):1301–1317. doi: 10.1111/brv.12703.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brang P, Spathelf P, Larsen JB, Bauhus J, Boncčìna A, Chauvin C, Drössler L, García-Güemes C, Heiri C, Kerr G, et al. 2014. Suitability of close-to-nature silviculture for adapting temperate European forests to climate change. Forestry: An Int J For Res. 87(4):492–503. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpu018.
   Google Scholar
• Bray DB. 2020. Mexico’s community forest enterprises: success on the commons and the seeds of a good anthropocene. Tuscon, Arizona, USA: University of Arizona Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burkett M. 2013. Indigenous environmental knowledge and climate change adaptation (SSRN scholarly paper 2385397). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2385397.
   Google Scholar
• Canada NR. 2015. Forest management planning. Natural Resources Canada. https://natural-resources.canada.ca/our-natural-resources/forests/sustainable-forest-management/forest-management-planning/17493.
   Google Scholar
• Carey H. 2019. Early history of the forest Stewards Guild; [accessed 2023 Sept 9]. https://foreststewardsguild.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/EarlyGuildHistory_byCarey.pdf;.
   Google Scholar
• Chan KM, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Díaz S, Gómez-Baggethun E, Gould R, Hannahs N, Jax K, Klain S, & others. 2016. Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 113(6):1462–1465. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525002113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan KM, Boyd DR, Gould RK, Jetzkowitz J, Liu J, Muraca B, Naidoo R, Olmsted P, Satterfield T, Selomane O, et al. 2020. Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. People Nat. 2(3):693–717. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10124.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman M, Deplazes-Zemp A. 2023. ‘I owe it to the animals’: the bidirectionality of Swiss alpine farmers’ relational values. People Nat. 5(1):147–161. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10415.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman M, Satterfield T, Chan KMA. 2019. When value conflicts are barriers: can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs? Land Use Pol. 82:464–475. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheveau M, Imbeau L, Drapeau P, Bélanger L. 2008. Current status and future directions of traditional ecological knowledge in forest management: a review. The Forestry Chronicle. 84(2):231–243. doi: 10.5558/tfc84231-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciancio O, Nocentini S. 1997. The forest and man: the evolution of forestry thought from modern humanism to the culture of complexity. Systemic silviculture and management on natural bases. The forest and man. Firenze, Italy: Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali; p. 21–114.
   Google Scholar
• Clawson M. 1977. The concept of multiple use forestry. Envtl. 8:281.
   Google Scholar
• Coelho-Junior MG, de Oliveira AL, da Silva-Neto EC, Castor-Neto TC, de Tavares AA, Basso VM, Turetta APD, Perkins PE, de Carvalho AG. 2021. Exploring plural values of ecosystem services: local peoples’ perceptions and implications for protected area management in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Sustainabil. 13(3):1019. Article 3. doi: 10.3390/su13031019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coufal JE. 1989. The land ethic question. J For. 87(6):22–24. doi: 10.1093/jof/87.6.22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dasgupta P. 2021. The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review: full report (updated: 18 February 2021). London, UK: HM Treasury.
   Google Scholar
• Deal R. 2018. Dictionary of forestry. Bethesda (MD): Society of American Foresters.
   Google Scholar
• Dıaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Bilgin A. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Sust. 14:1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorries H. 2022. What is planning without property? Relational practices of being and belonging. Environ Plann D: Soc Space. 40(2):306–318. doi: 10.1177/02637758211068505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncker PS, Barreiro SM, Hengeveld GM, Lind T, Mason WL, Ambrozy S, Spiecker H. 2012. Classification of forest management approaches: a new conceptual framework and its applicability to European forestry. Ecol Soc. 17(4). doi: 10.5751/ES-05262-170451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellen RF, Parkes (Anthropologist) P, Bicker A. 2000. Indigenous environmental knowledge and its transformations: critical anthropological perspectives. London, UK: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• EU. 2022. Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European parliament and the council of 14 December 2022. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2464/oj.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission, Directorate General for Communication. 2021. Making sustainable use of our natural resources. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2775/706146.
   Google Scholar
• Evans AM, Clark FA. 2017. Putting the forest first. J For. 115(1):54–55. doi: 10.5849/jof.16-070.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairfax SK, Fortmann L. 1990. American forestry professionalism in the third world: some preliminary observations. Popul Environ. 11(4):259–272. doi: 10.1007/BF01256459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Berkes F, McCay BJ, Acheson JM. 1990. The tragedy of the commons: twenty-two years later. Hum Ecol. 18(1):1–19. doi: 10.1007/BF00889070.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernow BE. 2015. A brief history of forestry in Europe, the United States and other countries (EBook #48874). Project Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48874/48874-h/48874-h.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Forestry explained. 2023. European commission. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/sustainability/forestry/forestry-explained_en.
   Google Scholar
• Fox TR. 2000. Sustained productivity in intensively managed forest plantations. For Ecol Manage. 138(1–3):187–202. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00396-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin JF, Johnson KN, Johnson DL. 2018. Ecological forest management. Long Grove, Illinois, USA: Waveland Press.
   Google Scholar
• FSC. 2018. The FSC national forest Stewardship standard of Canada, forest Stewardship standards (FSS) V(1-0); [accessed 2023 Sept 9]. https://connect.fsc.org/document-centre/documents/resource/223.
   Google Scholar
• FSC. 2023. FSC principles and criteria for forest stewardship FSC-STD-01-001 V5-3; [accessed 2023 Sep 9]. https://connect.fsc.org/document-centre/documents/resource/392.
   Google Scholar
• Giller KE, Leeuwis C, Andersson JA, Andriesse W, Brouwer A, Frost P, Hebinck P, Heitkönig I, van Ittersum MK, Koning N, et al. 2008. Competing claims on natural resources: what role for science? Ecol Soc. 13(2): https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267992.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould RK, Himes A, Anderson LM, Arias Arévalo P, Chapman M, Lenzi D, Muraca B, Tadaki M. 2024. Building on spash’s critiques of monetary valuation to suggest ways forward for relational values research. Environ Values. 33(2):139–162. doi: 10.1177/09632719241231422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould RK, Muraca B, Himes A, Hackenburg D. 2023. Biodiversity and relational values. En reference module in life sciences. Elsevier. 10.1016/B978-0-12-822562-2.00091-8.
   Google Scholar
• Gould RK, Pai M, Muraca B, Chan KMA. 2019. He ʻike ʻana ia i ka pono (it is a recognizing of the right thing): How one indigenous worldview informs relational values and social values. Sustainability Sci. 14(5):1213–1232. doi: 10.1007/s11625-019-00721-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graeber D, Wengrow D. 2021. The dawn of everything: a new history of humanity. London, UK: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Guadilla-Sáez S, Pardo-de-Santayana M, Reyes-García V. 2020. Forest commons, traditional community ownership and ecological consequences: insights from Spain. For Policy Econ. 112:102107. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guha R. 2000. The unquiet woods: ecological change and peasant resistance in the Himalaya. Oakland, California, USA: Univ of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gutierrez Garzon AR, Bettinger P, Siry J, Abrams J, Cieszewski C, Boston K, Mei B, Zengin H, Yeşil A. 2020. A comparative analysis of five forest certification programs. Forests. 11(8):863. Article 8. doi: 10.3390/f11080863.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardin G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons: the population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. Science. 162(3859):1243–1248. doi: 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hays SP. 2007. Wars in the woods: the rise of ecological forestry in America. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA: University of Pittsburgh Pre.
   Google Scholar
• Helms JA. 2002. Forest, forestry, forester: What do these terms mean? J For. 100(8):15–19. doi: 10.1093/jof/100.8.15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrmann TM, Torri M-C. 2009. Changing forest conservation and management paradigms: traditional ecological knowledge systems and sustainable forestry: perspectives from Chile and India. Int J Sust Dev World. 16(6):392–403. doi: 10.1080/13504500903346404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Himes A, Muraca B. 2018. Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Curr Opin Sust. 35:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Himes A, Muraca B, Anderson C, Athayde S, Beery T, Gonzalez-Jimenez D, Gould R, Hejnowicz AP, Kenter J, Lenzi D, et al. 2024. Why nature matters: a systematic review of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values. BioScience. 74(1):25–43. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biad109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Himes A, Puettmann K, Muraca B. 2020. Trade-offs between ecosystem services along gradients of tree species diversity and values. Ecosyst Serv. 44:101133. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holling CS, Meffe GK. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv Biol. 10(2):328–337. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosen N, Nakamura H, Hamzah A. 2020. Adaptation to climate change: does traditional ecological knowledge hold the key? Sustainab. 12(2):676. Article 2. doi: 10.3390/su12020676.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howitt R, Suchet‐Pearson S. 2006. Rethinking the building blocks: ontological pluralism and the idea of ‘management’. Geogr Ann Ser B. 88(3):323–335. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0459.2006.00225.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huntsinger L, McCaffrey S. 1995. A forest for the trees: forest management and the Yurok environment, 1850 to 1994. Am Indian Cult Res J. 19(4):155–192. doi: 10.17953/aicr.19.4.cv0758kh373323h1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain TB. 2013. Silviculture research: the intersection of science and art across generations. Western Forester. 8–9.
   Google Scholar
• Jax K, Calestani M, Chan KM, Eser U, Keune H, Muraca B, O’Brien L, Potthast T, Voget-Kleschin L, Wittmer H. 2018. Caring for nature matters: a relational approach for understanding nature’s contributions to human well-being. Curr Opin Sust. 35:22–29. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeanrenaud S. 2001. Communities and forest management in Western Europe: a regional profile of WG-CIFM the working group on community involvement in forest management. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
   Google Scholar
• Johann E. 2007. Traditional forest management under the influence of science and industry: the story of the alpine cultural landscapes. For Ecol Manage. 249(1–2):54–62. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.04.049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaltenborn BP, Linnell JD, Baggethun EG, Lindhjem H, Thomassen J, Chan KM. 2017. Ecosystem services and cultural values as building blocks for ‘the good life’. A case study in the community of røst, Lofoten Islands, Norway. Ecol Econ. 140:166–176. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim S, Li G, Son Y. 2017. The contribution of traditional ecological knowledge and practices to forest management: the case of Northeast Asia. Forests. 8(12):496. Article 12. doi: 10.3390/f8120496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klain SC, Olmsted P, Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Zia A. 2017. Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the new ecological paradigm. PLOS ONE. 12(8):e0183962. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183962.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klinger S, Bayne KM, Yao RT, Payn T. 2022. Credence attributes in the forestry sector and the role of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors. Forests. 13(3):432. Article 3. doi: 10.3390/f13030432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krumm F, Bauhus J, Bo Larsen J, Knoke T, Poetzelsberger E, Schuck A, Rigling A. 2023. «Closer-to-nature forest management»: was ist neu an diesem konzept? Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Forstwesen. 174(3):158–161. doi: 10.3188/szf.2023.0158.
   Google Scholar
• Latulippe N, Klenk N. 2020. Making room and moving over: knowledge co-production, indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Curr Opin Sust. 42:7–14. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.10.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowood HE. 1990. The calculating forester: quantification, cameral science, and the emergence of scientific forestry management in Germany. The Quantifying Spirit in the 18th Century. 11:315–342.
   Google Scholar
• Ludwig D. 2001. The era of management Is over. Ecosystems. 4(8):758–764. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0044-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez D. 2018. Redefining sustainability through kincentric ecology: reclaiming Indigenous lands, knowledge, and ethics. In: Nelson Mk, Shilling D, editors. Traditional ecological knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; p. 139–174.
   Google Scholar
• Mason WL, Diaci J, Carvalho J, Valkonen S. 2022. Continuous cover forestry in Europe: usage and the knowledge gaps and challenges to wider adoption. Forestry: An Int J Forest Res. 95(1):1–12. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpab038.
   Google Scholar
• Mattijssen TJM, Ganzevoort W, van den Born RJG, Arts BJM, Breman BC, Buijs AE, van Dam RI, Elands BHM, de Groot WT, Knippenberg LWJ. 2020. Relational values of nature: leverage points for nature policy in Europe. Ecosyst People. 16(1):402–410. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2020.1848926.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGregor J. 2018. Toward a philosophical understanding of TEK and ecofeminism. In: Nelson MK, Shilling D, editors. En traditional ecological knowledge: learning from indigenous practices for environmental sustainability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; p. 109–128.
   Google Scholar
• Minahan T. 2023. Integrating indigenous perspectives in forest policy through traditional ecological knowledge. American Bar Assocication. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/publications/fr/integrating-indigenous-perspectives/.
   Google Scholar
• Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit. 2020. Ambities en doelen van Rijk en provincies voor de Bossenstrategie. Den Haag: Ministerie van Landbouw. Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit.
   Google Scholar
• Mississippi Board of Registration for Foresters. 1977. Mississippi foresters registration law of 1977 (amended 1989); [accessed 2023 Sept 9]. https://www.borf.ms.gov/faqs.
   Google Scholar
• Moore SE, Cubbage F, Eicheldinger C. 2012. Impacts of forest stewardship council (FSC) and sustainable forestry initiative (SFI) forest certification in North America. J For. 110(2):79–88. doi: 10.5849/jof.10-050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muraca B. 2011. The map of moral significance: a new axiological matrix for environmental ethics. Environ Values. 20(3):375–396. doi: 10.3197/096327111X13077055166063.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muraca B. 2016. Relational values: a whiteheadian alternative for environmental philosophy and global environmental justice. Balkan J Philosophy. 8(1):19–38. doi: 10.5840/bjp2016813.
   Google Scholar
• National Forest Policy Statement. 1992. Australian government. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/agriculture-land/forestry/policies/forest-policy-statement.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson MK, Shilling D, editors. 2018. Traditional ecological knowledge: learning from Indigenous practices for environmental sustainability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson MP, Vucetich JA. 2018. Wolves and ravens, science and ethics: traditional ecological knowledge meets long-term ecological research, in traditional ecological knowledge: learning from indigenous practices for environmental sustainability 129–136. Cambridge (NY), Melbourne, New Delhi, Singapore: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nieuwenhuis M. 2000. Terminology of forest management (forsteinrichtung): terms and definitions in English: equivalent terms in German, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Hungarian and Japanese. Vienna, Austria: IUFRO.
   Google Scholar
• Nikolakis W, Nelson H. 2015. To log or not to log? How forestry fits with the goals of first nations in British Columbia. Can J For Res. 45(6):639–646. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-2014-0349.
   Google Scholar
• Noble B. 2008. Owning as belonging/owning as property: the crisis of power and respect in first nations heritage transactions with Canada. In: Bell C, Napoleon V, editors. First nations cultural heritage and Law: case studies, voices, and perspectives. Vancouver: UBC Press; p. 465–488.
   Google Scholar
• Nocentini S, Ciancio O, Portoghesi L, Corona P. 2021. Historical roots and the evolving science of forest management under a systemic perspective. Can J For Res. 51(2):163–171. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-2020-0293.
   Google Scholar
• Nyland RD. 2016. Silviculture: concepts and applications. Long Grove, Illinois, USA: Waveland Press.
   Google Scholar
• Odok GE. 2019. Commodification of forestlands and assault on indigenous knowledge within forest-dependent communities of cross river state, Nigeria. Trans R Soc S Afr. 74(2):126–131. doi: 10.1080/0035919X.2019.1600069.
   Google Scholar
• O’Hara KL. 2016. What is close-to-nature silviculture in a changing world? Forestry: An Int J Forest Res. 89(1):1–6. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpv043.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neill J. 1992. The Varieties of Intrinsic Value: Monist: An International Quarterly Journal of General Philosophical Inquiry. Monist: An Int Q J General Philosoph Inquiry. 75(2):119–137.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom E. 1999. Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annu Rev Polit Sci (Palo Alto). 2(1):493–535. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom E. 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environ Change. 20(4):550–557. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paillet Y, Bergès L, Hjältén J, Ódor P, Avon C, Bernhardt-Römermann M, Bijlsma R-J, De Bruyn LUC, Fuhr M, Grandin ULF. 2010. Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv Biol. 24(1):101–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01399.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palik BJ, D’Amato AW, Franklin JF, Johnson KN. 2020. Ecological silviculture: foundations and applications. Waveland Press: Long Grove, Illinois, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Paquette A, Messier C. 2010. The role of plantations in managing the world’s forests in the anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ. 8(1):27–34. doi: 10.1890/080116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parrotta JA, Fui HL, Jinlong L, Ramakrishnan PS, Yeo-Chang Y-C. 2009. Traditional forest-related knowledge and sustainable forest management in Asia. For Ecol Manage. 257(10):1987–1988. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(09)00221-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascual U, Balvanera P, Anderson CB, Chaplin-Kramer R, Christie M, González-Jiménez D, Martin A, Raymond CM, Termansen M, Vatn A, et al. 2023. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature. 620(7975):813–823. Article 7975. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascual U, Balvanera P, Christie M, Baptiste B, Gonzalez-Jimenez D, Anderson CB, Athayde S, Barton DN, Chaplin-Kramer R, Jacobs S, et al. 2022. Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES). Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.6813144.
   Google Scholar
• Paudyal K, Baral H, Lowell K, Keenan RJ. 2017. Ecosystem services from community-based forestry in Nepal: realising local and global benefits. Land Use Policy. 63:342–355. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.046.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierotti R, Wildcat D. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge: the third alternative (commentary). Ecol Appl. 10(5):1333–1340. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1333:TEKTTA]2.0.CO;2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinchot G. 1947. Breaking New Ground. New York, USA: Harcourt, Brace.
   Google Scholar
• Pommerening A, Murphy ST. 2004. A review of the history, definitions and methods of continuous cover forestry with special attention to afforestation and restocking. Forestry: An Int J Forest Res. 77(1):27–44. doi: 10.1093/forestry/77.1.27.
   Google Scholar
• Proctor JD. 1995. Whose nature? The contested moral terrain of ancient forests. In: Cronon W, editor. En uncommon ground: toward reinventing nature. New York City, New York, USA: WW Norton & Company; p. 269–297.
   Google Scholar
• Puettmann KJ, Coates KD, Messier CC. 2009. A critique of silviculture: managing for complexity. Washington, DC, USA: Island press.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond CM, Anderson CB, Athayde S, Vatn A, Amin A, Arévalo PA, Christie M, Cantú-Fernández M, Gould RK, Himes A, et al. 2023. An inclusive typology of values for navigating transformations towards a just and sustainable future. Curr Opin Sust. 64:101301. In Press. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reidel CH. 1970. Environmental forestry: a modest proposal. J For. 68(2):100–104. doi: 10.1093/jof/68.2.100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson MP, Ross MM. 1997. Traditional land use and occupancy studies and their impact on forest planning and management in alberta. The Forestry Chronicle. 73(5):596–605. doi: 10.5558/tfc73596-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rolston H III, Coufal J. 1991. A forest ethic and multivalue forest management. J For. 89(4):35–40. doi: 10.1093/jof/89.4.35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose C. 1986. The comedy of the commons: custom, commerce, and inherently public property. Univ Chic Law Rev. 53(3):711–781. doi: 10.2307/1599583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SAF code of ethics. n.d. [accessed 2023 Sep 8]. https://www.eforester.org/CodeofEthics.aspx;.
   Google Scholar
• SAF (Society of American Foresters). 2021. Accreditation handbook: standards, procedures, and guidelines for accrediting educational programs in professional forestry, urban forestry, natural resources and ecosystem management, and in forest technology; [accessed 2023 Sept 9]. https://www.eforester.org/Main/Accreditation/Criteria_and_Documents/Main/Accreditation/Criteria_and_Documents.aspx?hkey=b337bccf-b946-4038-8667-108442c69e22.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz RP. 1999. Loblolly—the pine for the twenty-first century. In: En Boyle JR, Winjum JK, Kavanagh K Jensen EC, editors. Planted forests: contributions to the quest for sustainable societies. Springer Netherlands; p. 71–88. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-2689-4_6.
   Google Scholar
• Scott JC. 1998. Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, Connecticut, USA: Yale university Press.
   Google Scholar
• Seymour RS, Hunter ML Jr. 1999. Principles of ecological forestry. Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems 22–64. Cambridge, (UK): CambridgeUniversity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sierra-Huelsz JA, Gerez Fernández P, López Binnqüist C, Guibrunet L, Ellis EA. 2020. Traditional ecological knowledge in community forest management: evolution and limitations in Mexican forest law, policy and practice. Forests. 11(4):403. Article 4. doi: 10.3390/f11040403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith P, Ross M. 2002. Accommodation of aboriginal rights: the need for an aboriginal forest tenure. ERA. 10.7939/R3WB6N.
   Google Scholar
• Snively G, Corsiglia J. 2001. Discovering indigenous science: implications for science education. Sci Educ. 85(1):6–34. Article 1. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X(200101)85:1<6:AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-R.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snively G, Williams L. 2006. The aboriginal knowledge and science education research project. Canadian J Native Educ. 29(2):229.
   Google Scholar
• Spash C, Aslaksen I. 2015. Re-establishing an ecological discourse in the policy debate over how to value ecosystems and biodiversity. J Environm Manage. 159:245–253. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spash C, Vatn A. 2006. Transferring environmental value estimates: issues and alternatives. Ecol Econ. 60(2):379–388. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoddard CH. 1959. Essentials of forest practice. New York, New York, USA: The Ronald Press Company.
   Google Scholar
• Stroup R, Baden J. 1973. Externality, property rights, and the management of our national forests. J Law Econ. 16(2):303–312. doi: 10.1086/466768.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takala T, Lehtinen A, Tanskanen M, Hujala T, Tikkanen J. 2019. The rise of multi-objective forestry paradigm in the Finnish print media. For Policy Econ. 106:101973. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101973.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsuji LJ, Ho E. 2002. Traditional environmental knowledge and western science: In search of common ground. Can J Native Stud. 22(2):327–360.
   Google Scholar
• USFS. 2014. USDA forest service manual 2400 forest management chapter 2470 silvicultural practices. WO Amendment 2400-2014-1, Effective Date. 03/6/2014. Available online https://www.fs.usda.gov/im/directives/fsm/2400/wo_2470.doc.
   Google Scholar
• Vatn A. 2020. Institutions for sustainability—towards an expanded research program for ecological economics. Ecol Econ. 168:106507. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verma P, Vaughan K, Martin K, Pulitano E, Garrett J, Piirto DD. 2016. Integrating indigenous knowledge and Western science into forestry, natural resources, and environmental programs. J For. 114(6):648–655. Article 6. doi: 10.5849/jof.15-090.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vitkova L, Dhubháin ÁN. 2013. Transformation to continuous cover forestry—a review. Irish Forestry. 119–140.
   Google Scholar
• Wang S, Cornelis van Kooten G, Wilson B. 2004. Mosaic of reform: forest policy in post-1978 China. For Policy Econ. 6(1):71–83. Article 1. doi: 10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00078-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warde P. 2018. The invention of sustainability: nature and destiny, c. 1500–1870. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• West S, Haider LJ, Masterson V, Enqvist JP, Svedin U, Tengö M. 2018. Stewardship, care and relational values. Curr Opin Sust. 35:30–38. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West S, Haider LJ, Stålhammar S, Woroniecki S. 2020. A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosystem People. 16(1):304–325. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2020.1814417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• What We Believe. 2016. US forest service. https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/what-we-believe.
   Google Scholar
• Whyte K. 2018. What do indigenous knowledges do for indigenous peoples?. In: Nelson MK, Shilling D, editors. Traditional ecological knowledge: learning from indigenous practices for environmental sustainability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Willems-Braun B. 1996. Colonial vestiges: representing forest landscapes on Canada’s West coast. B C Stud: The British Columbian Quart. 112. Article 112. doi: 10.14288/bcs.v0i112.1666.
   Google Scholar
• Wyatt S. 2008. First nations, forest lands, and “aboriginal forestry” in Canada: from exclusion to comanagement and beyond. Can J For Res. 38(2):171–180. Article 2. doi: 10.1139/X07-214.
   Google Scholar
• Yuliani EL, Moeliono M, Labarani A, Fisher MR, Tias PA, Sunderland T. 2022. Relational values of forests: value-conflicts between local communities and external programmes in Sulawesi. People Nat. 5(6):1822–1838. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10389.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang JJ, Mårald E, Bjärstig T. 2022. The recent resurgence of multiple-use in the Swedish forestry discourse. Soc Natur Resour. 35(4):430–446. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2022.2025550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar